Radical Orthodoxy: Theology, Philosophy, Politics, Vol. 1, Number 3 (September 2013): 538-59. ISSN 2050-392X Living Realism Don Adams “As a method Realism is a complete failure…. Life goes faster than Realism.” (Oscar Wilde, “The Decay of Lying” 991-2) “The very essence of real actuality – that is, of the completely real – is process.” (Alfred North Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas 274) “Appearance has the completeness of reality, but only as appearance. As anything other than appearance it is error.” (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 51) "By reality and perfection I understand the same." (Spinoza, Ethics 114) ealism in literature is a topic that has not been much debated or discussed in recent years. In contemporary theory and criticism, “Literary Realism” usually is understood to refer to the movement R in fiction and related criticism at the end of the nineteenth century that purported to stay true to the facts of the everyday world and to avoid the imaginative excesses of Romanticism. The more general theoretical topic of the nature of reality as it is represented and expressed in literature is rarely addressed directly. One difficulty is that there is no easy way to distinguish clearly between representative and non-representative language in literature, as the representational in the visual arts is distinguished from the abstract and expressive. It is extremely difficult to create a work of art in verbal language that Radical Orthodoxy 1, No. 3 (September 2013). 539 is entirely or even largely non-representative of some version of recognizable reality, although Gertrude Stein and her experimental and language poet heirs certainly have made the effort. But such work makes up a very small fraction of what is conventionally considered to be literature. The remainder involves some form, at least, of realism. Although the topic of realism in literature largely has been absent from recent theoretical discussion, it has thrived as a critical judgment, in the sense that a frequent criticism of a literary work is that it has achieved or failed to achieve a sense of being realistic and true to life. Realism in literature also has been operative by its absence as a criterion for defining genre literature such as fantasy and science fiction, which occupy worlds that are purposefully unrealistic in the conventional sense. And yet, even in these genres, there is a general attempt to maintain a psychological realism of motive and behaviour, and a logical realism of cause and effect. Our failure to be theoretically self-conscious about realism in literature has broad ramifications in terms of our understanding of the relationship between the literary work and our actual and real lives. For the nature of what we understand to be real has altered dramatically since the late nineteenth century period in which the theory of literary realism was developed, a theory that defined realism in literature in the way that we still habitually use the concept, as the mimetic copying of the actual world of fact. But this was never a very adequate or useful critical concept, even in its heyday, and it has become much less so as our understanding of the nature of the real has been altered and complicated by general relativity, quantum physics, and the uncertainty principle; as well as by the more recent rise of organic and complex systems theories involving nonlinear dynamics, feedback loops and dissipative structures. As our understanding of the nature of the real as it relates to life itself has become more nuanced and complex, so our concept of realism in literature should change with it, or else we will be mistaken in both theory and practice. Among other things, we will not be able to recognize and appreciate examples of non-mimetic literary realism when we encounter them, which helps to account for the marginalization of modern and contemporary writers who have written fictive works that have challenged the nature of literary realism from within by creating generically mixed realisms that are complexly relational and 540 Adams, ‘Living Realism’ participatory in a manner that implicitly questions the adequacy and veracity of mimetic representation, as modern science has disrupted and complicated the Newtonian universe. We might begin a reconception of realism in literature by acknowledging that, in our actual lives, we live simultaneously in two real worlds, the world as given and the world as desired, and that there is a complex and evolving relationship between the two. To make such a statement is to acknowledge the reality of the past, present, and future in any real world experience; the past is the given world, the future is the desired world, and the present is the complexly evolving intersection of the two. When reality is conceived of in this manner, our understanding of the fundamental relationship between subject and object in our representation of reality in literature is transformed from the mimetic realist’s paradigm, in which the relationship of subject to object involves the faithful apprehension by a subjective observer of a set of objective static facts, to a participatory subject-object paradigm in which the future is creatively and interactively evolved out of the past. In the mimetic realist paradigm, reality is always and only present, but in our actual lives, the present is suffused with our creative and purposive progress into the future, so that, as the process philosopher Alfred North Whitehead observed, “The future is to the present as an object for a subject. It has an objective existence in the present” (AOI 194). Whitehead further explained that it is only when “viewed in abstraction [that] objects are passive, but viewed in conjunction they carry the creativity which drives the world” (AOI 179). In his focus upon the creatively progressive nature of reality, Whitehead was implicitly affirming Oscar Wilde’s contention that “life goes faster than Realism” (991), by which Wilde meant the conventional mimetic realism that recently had arisen as the dominant fictive mode of his day. Such realism takes as its goal and criterion of judgment the reproduction of the world in the artistic work as it is experienced in ordinary life. The problem, of course, is that there is no such living thing as ordinary life. It is living reality that has been made into a normative abstraction, a life-like concept, which is to be made unliving, as Wilde’s American contemporary William James poignantly observed: “Reality fails in passing into conceptual analysis; it mounts in living its own undivided life – it buds and burgeons, changes and creates” (264). Reality as it is presented to Radical Orthodoxy 1, No. 3 (September 2013). 541 us in the concept of conventional mimetic realism is only possible reality, that which seems possible given the world we live in now, or given the world the critic and artist once inhabited; and possible reality is, by its very nature, a dead reality, as Gilles Deleuze explained in describing the manner in which the possible is derived from the real: It is not the real that resembles the possible, it is the possible that resembles the real, because it has been abstracted from the real once made, arbitrarily extracted from the real like a sterile double. Hence, we no longer understand anything either of the mechanism of difference or of the mechanism of creation. Evolution takes place from the virtual to actuals. Evolution is actualization, actualization is creation (Bergsonism 98). The world conceptual mimetic realism seeks to reproduce is the world of completed actualizations, commonly referred to as “reality,” devoid of the realm of virtual potentials from which it is derived. It is the world of appearance, as Simone Weil referred to it above. As a world of appearance, it is complete in itself. But it is not living reality, and to mistake it as such is to make a sterile double (in effect, an idol) of what is only an abstract stage in an ongoing real process of creation. The real world, or reality itself in its fullest sense, is comprised of both the virtual and the actual, the realm of being and the realm of becoming; it is ever- changing and everlasting, and it is beyond reproof, as Spinoza famously posited. The virtual realm of being exists in the actual world of becoming as a future- oriented task or goal. In terms of human progress, it exists as the ideal of Utopia, which has the living reality of potential actualization, as Wilde observed with his typical aplomb: A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realization of Utopias (1089). It is the artists, Wilde argued, who lead us on this creative, evolutionary journey: “The future is what artists are” (1100). The great artists are not mimetic materialists, according to this conceptual viewpoint, but are visionary realists, who demonstrate for us the manner in which the virtual is made actual through interactive creation. They do not slavishly copy the world as it is given, but creatively found living realities that open up the future. In so doing, they form 542 Adams, ‘Living Realism’ connections between the eternal realm of being and the existent realm of becoming, demonstrating the dual, dialectical nature of reality as a whole. The theoretical underpinnings of such realism may be unfamiliar to students of literary history, who typically are taught that literary realism means life-like mimesis, the faithful reproduction of the world of appearances as it is ordinarily experienced.